from the damn-lies-and-statistics dept

As we noted last week, the idea that net neutrality is a strictly partisan issue is a dated one, with several new studies indicating that support for net neutrality (and support for meaningful net neutrality rules) is increasingly common among members of all parties. As we've also noted several times, most people, when you sit them down and talk to them, understand that letting lumbering telecom duopolists write the laws, corner the market, and erect obnoxious new and arbitrary tolls, simply isn't a very bright idea or conducive to healthy technology markets.

While a number of polls and surveys were busy deconstructing the myth of the partisan neutrality feud last week, Rasmussen Reports was busy trying to perpetuate it. The firm recently issued a new poll that breathlessly proclaimed that 61% of the public opposed net neutrality rules, while also insisting that people generally really like their cable and broadband providers:

"Most Americans have opposed increased government regulation of the Internet since December 2010 when some members of the FCC began pushing “net neutrality” efforts to stop some companies from offering higher downloading speeds to preferred customers. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Americans who regularly go online rate the quality of their Internet service as good or excellent. Only five percent (5%) consider their service poor. Americans remain suspicious of the motives of those who want government regulation of the Internet. Sixty-eight percent (68%) are concerned that if the FCC does gain regulatory control over the Internet, it will lead to government efforts to control online content or promote a political agenda, with 44% who are Very Concerned."

Of course if you actually bother to investigate the questions asked of survey participants, you'll notice this amusing little ditty:

"Should the Internet remain "open" without regulation and censorship or should the Federal Communications Commission regulate the Internet like it does radio and television?"

Note that in this case the question tells the poll taker the Internet is currently "open" and that regulation will automatically change this. Amusingly, the phrase "and censorship" is just kind of thrown in there casually, as if nobody reading the poll questions could possibly ferret out that Rasmussen is being misleading. It's effectively asking survey recipients: "Do you like government meddling -- that involves punching you squarely in the face?"

The Rasmussen poll wording also goes on to more subtly rattle ye olde "all regulation is automatically evil" saber, strongly implying that real competition would be immeasurably better than consumer protections. That's partially true -- we've obviously argued more than a few times that net neutrality violations are just the symptom of the lack of competition disease. That said, Rasmussen intentionally ignores (or doesn't actually understand) that Title II with forbearance is the best option available in the face of an immensely powerful broadband duopoly (or monopoly) that's simply not getting fixed anytime soon.

Obviously this isn't the first time Rasmussen has brought loaded questions to play. The firm's reputation as a reliable pollster took a mammoth hit back in 2010 for repeatedly being significantly off on projections, and having what Nate Silver and Five-Thirty-Eight at the time complained was "cavalier attitude toward polling convention," something Silver stated would "need to be refined" if the pollster was to ever be taken seriously again. Judging from their net neutrality poll, those necessary improvements may not be coming anytime soon.

That said, do you support net neutrality...when it involves getting kicked in the groin?

from the who-are-they-representing dept

Within hours of President Obama's surprise call for true net neutrality rules under Title II, Republicans in Congress were in a full-fledged freakout. Beyond the nutty comparisons to Obamacare or suggesting that this will lead to greater oppression in Russia, China and Iran (no, really, that claim was made), a bunch of elected Republicans in Congress sent a letter to the FCC strongly opposing Title II, insisting that it would be "beyond the scope of the FCC's authority."

For years now, we've pointed out how ridiculous it is that net neutrality became a "partisan" issue. In the early days, when it was neither, there were interesting discussions about the pros and cons of it. Once it became a "blue team v. red team" issue, most reasoned debate went out the window, and we were left with ridiculous exaggerations about "regulating the internet" or "the death of the internet." That's not helpful.

But here's the thing: actual Republicans outside of Congress support net neutrality too (though, it helps not to call it "net neutrality.") Two separate studies have come out this week making this point. First up, there was a poll from the University of Delaware's Center for Political Communication, checking in with 900 adult US residents. When not using the term net neutrality, but asking if they "favor" or "oppose" allowing broadband access providers to charge websites or streaming video services extra for faster speeds -- across the board, only 17% favored or strongly favored that idea, while 81% were opposed (37%) or strongly opposed (44%) the idea. Digging down to just the Republicans, it turns out that even more Republicans were against this than democrats. Only 13% favored (11%) or strongly favored (2%) letting broadband players set up such tollbooths, while 85% were opposed (44%) or strongly opposed (41%).

Meanwhile, a different poll released by the Internet Freedom Business Alliance (IFBA) and done by Vox Populi, surveying 1270 active voters, found similarly overwhelming results that conservatives and Republicans actually support (strongly) net neutrality:

Some 83% of voters who self-identified as “very conservative” were concerned about the possibility of ISPs having the power to “influence content” online. Only 17% reported being unconcerned. Similarly, 83% of self-identified conservatives thought that Congress should take action to ensure that cable companies do not “monopolize the Internet” or “reduce the inherent equality of the Internet” by charging some content companies for speedier access.

A few months ago, we wrote about a great argument made by a "self-identified conservative" arguing why Republicans should support reclassification, mainly to block out the harmful monopolistic tendencies of broadband providers. And it appears that conservatives and Republicans (and, of course, those aren't always the same thing, but there is a lot of overlap) intuitively agree with this position.

So why don't their elected representatives? The explanation that still seems to make the most sense is that the money is too good in opposing net neutrality.

from the this-can-happen dept

One of the most annoying things about the net neutrality fight -- as we've been noting for over a decade -- is how silly the net neutrality debate was once it became "partisan." An issue that, previously, had been a general one about the future of the internet turned into a ridiculous political circus with Republicans (misleadingly) claiming it was about "regulating the internet." You'd think that the "pro-business party," as they like to call themselves, would support a policy of an open and free internet that enables so many entrepreneurs and businesses to exist. But, of course, "pro-business" is often code for "pro-big-legacy business." Either way, the unfortunate news is this has become a stupidly partisan issue, and when that happens, reasoned debate often goes out the window. Given that, one the prevailing narratives in DC circles is that this idea of reclassification of broadband under Title II (basically common carrier status) was "politically impossible," because it would entail a huge partisan fight in Congress, and apparently no one wants to do that.

This argument, too, is kind of stupid and typical of the Jay Rosen-coined concept of the "Church of the Savvy," in which the narrative of the politics becomes much more important than the policy itself. In this case, it's pretty clear that the "fight" is happening no matter what rules the FCC comes out with. The politicians opposed to net neutrality have made it clear that they'll oppose any rules that the FCC adopts, including its currently proposed, ridiculously weak, rules under Section 706, which leave the door wide open to destroying net neutrality and creating fast lanes.

Given that, it seems like the FCC has a choice on its hands: (A) go with pretend net neutrality and have Republicans fight like hell against it, or (B) go with real net neutrality rules and have Republicans fight like hell against it. It's difficult to see how choice (A) makes any sense, except that the "savvy" claim has long been that the Democrats didn't have the political will to really fight back against Republicans over Title II (suggesting that they would be more willing to support Wheeler's fake neutrality rules).

But, a funny thing has been happening over the last few weeks, indicating that "the savvy" may not be so "savvy" after all. A bunch of Senators have come out strongly in favor of Title II reclassification. And then the big gun came out: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has basically told activists that he'd support the FCC in a political fight with Republicans if the FCC chooses Title II. Reid, unfortunately, did not go all out, and directly urge the FCC to support Title II, but his statement that he would support "any Open Internet rules" that the FCC comes up with is a pretty clear signal to the FCC that the Democratic Leadership in the Senate wouldn't shy away from supporting Title II, as many had assumed.

It may seem like a small step, but the signalling here is pretty important, because it suggests that the "politically impossible" Title II reclassification is moving towards a political possibility... if the FCC and Chairman Wheeler are actually willing to make that move. In the past, Wheeler has argued that there wasn't enough political support to go with Title II, and that's part of the reason he was leaning on the fake solution of Section 706. But as more and more support in Congress is popping up for Title II, the tide is shifting towards it being a political possibility, even if it still very much depends on if Wheeler is willing to take a stand, or fold like so many previous FCC bosses.

Now, if only some on the Republican side stopped listening to the misleading talking points on this, and took the time to understand why this actually matters, and is so important to businesses and innovation...

from the insanity dept

The Senate/CIA spying scandal continues to get more and more ridiculous. The latest is that it's turning into a political fight between Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, rather than what it really is: a Constitutional crisis concerning the separation of powers and the ability of Congress to oversee the executive branch's intelligence community. You would think that other Senators would line up behind Senator Feinstein's anger over the CIA directly spying on Senate Intelligence Committee staffers who were compiling a detailed report into the CIA's use of torture.

But, they're not. This first became clear when the top two Republicans on the Committee more or less spoke out against Feinstein:

Many of the Republicans on the intelligence committee didn't share her position. The panel's top Republican, Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, said he and Ms. Feinstein "have some disagreements as to what the actual facts are."

Others criticized her for airing her concerns so openly. "I personally don't believe that anything that goes on in the intelligence committee should ever be discussed publicly," said Sen. Richard Burr (R., N.C.).

Burr's comments are particularly chilling, as he's actually likely to replace Chambliss as the top Republican -- meaning that if the Republicans recapture the Senate, he's likely to take over Feinstein's job as the chair of the Intelligence Committee. Think about all the stonewalling the Committee currently does. Then picture the guy who said that quote above in charge.

And, in the last day it's gone even more haywire, as Burr and other Republicans are now trying to use this as a political gambit to claim that Senator Mark Udall (a Democrat and the one who really called attention to the CIA's actions) somehow leaked classified info in revealing the CIA's actions. According to Politico, even though Republicans have leaked far more info, they see this as a chance to attack Udall, a first term Democrat known for actually standing up for civil liberties and the rights of the public (how dare he):

Republicans say that not only has the committee’s chairwoman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), provided selective information to the public about improper CIA conduct, but they are also now pointing the finger at Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.).

Democrats counter that Republicans are now engaging in a partisan witch hunt aimed at hurting Udall politically and providing cover to the CIA and the George W. Bush’s administration’s handling of the controversial interrogation and detention program.

I've made it clear before few things annoy me more than partisan bickering in Congress (which is why we rarely even mention which party politicians belong to -- unless, as here, it's a part of the story). And this is a particularly stupid issue to have partisan bickering over. Senate Republicans really think that bashing Udall is a better strategy than making sure that they can have real oversight of the CIA without having the CIA spy on their own staff?

Besides even the arguments that Udall revealed sensitive information, or that it deserves an "ethics" review are incredibly weak. The concern stems from the letter Udall sent the President last week concerning the nomination of a new CIA General Counsel. In it, he mentioned the following:

As you are aware, the CIA has recently taken unprecedented action against the Committee in relation to the internal CIA review, and I find these actions to be incredibly troubling for the Committee's oversight responsibilities and for our democracy. It is essential that the Committee be able to do its oversight work -- consistent with our constitutional principle of the separation of powers -- without the CIA posing impediments or obstacles as it is today.

That reveals nothing that appears to be particularly sensitive or classified. Instead, it actually was general enough that it left many people scratching their heads. But to hear Senator Burr talk about it, he acts as if this information puts the lives of people at danger:

“I think Mark did make some public releases that were committee sensitive information, but that’s for the committee internally to handle,” said Burr. “That’s being reviewed right now.”

Burr added: “If you look historically, the committee has cleaned up any mistakes that members have made. Members can do whatever they want to. My concern is that the release of information could potentially causes the losses of life to Americans. That to me, is a threshold that should be addressed.”

Oh come on. Seriously? By mentioning the fact that the CIA searched the network of the Senate Intelligence Committee staffers, it means people will die? Who does he think he's kidding? We know that there are always ridiculous claims whenever there are intelligence community leaks about "lives in danger" (which almost never pan out to be true). But at least in those cases, there's an argument that could be made how the revelations might tie back to national security issues. There is no such thread here at all. This is not about the CIA spying on potential terrorists. It's about them spying on their overseers, and rather than recognize what this means for their own interests Senate Republicans are pretending that its putting people's lives at risk?

from the up-is-down,-left-is-right dept

Geoffrey Stone, one of the members of the White House task force which suggested that the President needed to end the Section 215 bulk collection of phone records, has said that he was told that the White House rejected that plan because they viewed the report as "liberal."

“And instead of our report being truly understood as a middle ground, based upon taking into account all of those perspectives on both sides of the spectrum, I think the White House got moved by thinking of our report as a liberal report,” Stone said.

God forbid a supposedly "liberal" President actually do something he considers "liberal." And, indeed, it seemed that his non-proposal in which he pretends to reform NSA surveillance was predicated on not pissing off the hawkish conservatives who tend to support the surveillance state.

So... what happens now that the supposedly conservative, hawkish, surveillance state-loving Republican Party has agreed that the program is unconstitutional and should be shut down?

To some extent, it really does seem to go back to the corruption of power. Those in power always seem to trust themselves not to abuse that power -- and unthinking automaton partisan hacks seem to flip their position based on whether their guy or the other guy is power.

There's been an insanely stupid debate over the past few weeks as to whether or not folks like Ed Snowden, Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange were somehow "ideologically pure" enough to be supported by liberals -- which highlights the monumentally asinine level of political discourse in the country these days, further highlighted by President Obama rejecting the task force's opinions as being "too liberal."

As can be seen by the flip-flopping of "liberals" and "conservatives" over the surveillance state, the entire concept of those labels is really no different than if you're rooting for the orange team or the yellow team. It's like the old joke about how if you root for a sports team, you're really rooting for the laundry. People focused on whether something is "liberal enough" or "conservative enough" are wasting everyone's time. These issues are not about being "liberal" or "conservative." They're about doing what's right. It's not about partisan politics or which team you play for or root for. It should be about what is best for the country and the wider world in which we live.

It's incredibly disheartening that we seem to live in a world where that aspect is barely considered but what color your team is matters the most.

from the seriously? dept

One of the things that became quite clear with yesterday's vote by the House to keep the NSA collecting records on every single one of your phone calls was the strange bedfellows that came together over this issue. Fighting against the surveillance were conservatives who were skeptical about government power along with liberals who were skeptical of government overreach into private lives. On the flip side, you had the White House and the leadership of both parties -- who tend to lean more towards supporting excessive power in the executive branch (perhaps because of their own dreams of being able to control that power). It's not often you see Michele Bachmann and Nancy Pelosi agreeing on very much.

Over at the Huffington Post, there's a good article about these odd pairings, noting the oddity of Bachmann endorsing the "identical" position as the Obama administration. But the really stunning point is at the end of the article, where it mentions that Steny Hoyer, the Democratic whip, who's in charge of gathering up the votes on the Democratic side, and who apparently was working overtime to convince Democrats to vote in favor of ignoring the 4th Amendment, sent the most bizarre "description" of the amendment. While that only has a clip, a friend sent over the full "description" sent by Steny Hoyer to all of the Democrats in the House:

Amash/Conyers/Mulvaney/Polis/Massie Amendment – Bars the NSA and other agencies from using Section 215 of the Patriot Act (as codified by Section 501 of FISA) to collect records, including telephone call records, that pertain to persons who may be in communication with terrorist groups but are not already subject to an investigation under Section 215

Talk about misleading. The program pertains to everyone. At this point, it's no secret that the records collected under this authority include a record of every single phone call. This is not about collecting records of people talking to terrorists. It's about collecting records on everyone. So, the only rational deciphering of Hoyer's email is that he believes that every American "may be in communication with terrorist groups" and therefore it's okay to spy on them.

from the modern-politics dept

There's been plenty of talk about how the Democratic Party is strongly supported by Hollywood -- and MPAA boss Chris Dodd famously threatened politicians that Hollywood might not fund their campaigns if they didn't support SOPA. So it's quite interesting to see Mother Jones' detailed analysis of Hollywood mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg's strong support of President Obama's last campaign. There's a lot of nuance in there, so this is not just a case of clear tit-for-tat political funding in exchange for political favors. The article states multiple times that Katzenberg doesn't really seem that focused on getting anything back for his efforts and money.

Katzenberg has said he wants nothing, personally or professionally, in exchange for his support of the president, and DreamWorks' DC agenda is hard to glean: The studio has no lobbyists and is not part of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

Later in the article, it notes that Chris Dodd asked Katzenberg to speak to Obama to find out his stance on SOPA in January of 2012, which was "mortifying" for Dodd, since Dreamworks is not a member of the MPAA. Katzenberg, who did support SOPA, still refused Dodd's request, but then did help to "soothe the egos" of other studio heads after Obama came out against SOPA, to make sure they kept funding him. As the article notes: "In the end, Katzenberg chose to help Obama win over his industry rather than helping his industry win over Obama."

Elsewhere:

Obama officials say they respect Katzenberg not only for his fundraising, but also because he has no specific "ask"—no ambassadorship to Switzerland, no regulatory tweak, no nights in the Lincoln Bedroom.

While that's good, the article does make clear two things: (1) even if he's not asking for anything specifically, he does have incredible clout, (2) the administration seems to want to keep wider Hollywood happy anyway, knowing that it will keep Katzenberg happy. In other words, even if Katzenberg's own motives are entirely pure, the possibility of policy pandering to him and his friends is high.

Obama takes Katzenberg's calls, and he and his political adviser, Andy Spahn, visited the White House almost 50 times between them during Obama's first term. (Not all of Spahn's visits had to do with Katzenberg.) It has also left him well positioned to advocate for his industry's and his company's interests in China's booming film market.

And, of course, lots of Democratic politicians now want to curry favor with Katzenberg and his friends, whether or not he asks for it.

Adds Paul Begala: "Every Democrat who has presidential ambitions is now going to beat a path straight for Jeffrey's door. Or they're too dumb to be president."

The end result, of course, are favorable deals even if they don't ask directly.

Yet it is hard to deny that he—along with Hollywood as a whole—has benefited from his connections. In the 2012 fiscal-cliff fight, for instance, the White House insisted Congress preserve a $430 million tax break for film studios that keep production jobs in the United States.

But, the much bigger deal, as the article explains, is how the administration, led by Joe Biden (of course), has helped clear the way for the Chinese market.

In July 2011, ahead of a trade visit to China, Vice President Joe Biden met with industry leaders who asked him to press their case. Biden, too, returned empty-handed. Seven months later, Xi Jinping, then China's leader-in-waiting, made his first official visit to America. On hand to greet him was Katzenberg, who scored a seat next to Xi at a State Department luncheon.

Later that week, Xi and Biden traveled to Los Angeles, and Katzenberg joined them for lunch with Gov. Brown. Biden spent the day pushing Xi on the film quota and profit sharing disputes. The White House wanted to bump the studios' portion from 13 percent to 27 percent, but as the negotiations intensified, Biden asked Katzenberg and Disney CEO Bob Iger what they could live with. Then Biden made Xi a new offer: 25 percent. Xi agreed, and he also said China would let in 14 more foreign-made 3-D and IMAX movies each year.

Katzenberg was simultaneously working on a $350 million deal to open Oriental DreamWorks, a new animation studio in Shanghai—and it couldn't happen without Xi's approval. That same day, at a US-China economic forum held at a downtown LA hotel, Katzenberg officially unveiled the project—and proudly announced that it now bore Xi's personal endorsement.

Having the VP of the US personally negotiate a huge deal like that for you is certainly a nice side benefit.

There's a lot more in the profile, which is really worth reading in full. It seems pretty clear that, unlike some who donate heavily, it really doesn't seem like Katzenberg is funding Obama because he wants something back directly, but rather because he believes in Obama himself. But what's most interesting to me is that, even if that's the case, the end results are almost still the same thing. Even without specific policy desires or asks, because of the money on the line, politicians (especially those vying for that money in the future) often feel they need to heed the general desires of the industry in order to keep that money flowing. That, alone, at least gives the appearance of corruption. Or, as Larry Lessig has called it repeatedly, "soft corruption." It's not the out and out bribery that many people think, but rather the overall set up that generally incentivizes behavior in the direction that favors the funders, even if it's at the expense of the public.

Of course, in the end what this comes down to, as always, is the issue of money and politics, and how it turns a democratic process into one in which those with more dollars have a lot more power and say. And that's still a big problem.

from the all-the-others-are-just-14-year-olds-in-their-basement dept

This is not wholly surprising, but after some debate and some half-hearted attempts at pretending they care about the public's privacy rights, the House has passed CISPA, 288 votes against 127. The vote breakdown did not go fully along party lines, though it was clearly Republican driven. 196 Republicans voted for it, while just 29 voted against it (despite numerous conservative groups coming out against the bill). The Democrats split down the middle. 92 Dems voted for it and 98 against. If you compare this to last year, it looks like a lot more Democrats went from opposing to being in favor of trampling your privacy rights. Last year, 140 Dems voted against CISPA and only 42 for it. Either way, this seems like a pretty bi-partisan decision to shaft the American public on their privacy rights. That said, there is still the threat of a Presidential veto (though, with the vote today, the House is close to being able to override a veto). The bigger question is now the Senate, which couldn't agree on a cybersecurity bill last year, and has shown no signs of improvement this year. If you want to protect your privacy, it's time to focus on the Senate, and make sure they know not to pass a privacy-destroying bill like CISPA.

from the techies-vs.-politicians dept

Right after the election, we noted the stories showing how Obama's technology advantage was impressive, while the get-out-the-vote technology that the Romney campaign built up appeared to fail spectacularly. However, there's an interesting post mortem to this, which shows how techies and politicians still usually come from very, very different worlds. The world class team of technologists who helped build up Obama's campaign tech are trying to release their work as open source -- but Democratic Party operatives are trying to keep it secret, believing (almost certainly incorrectly) that this gives them a proprietary advantage:

But in the aftermath of the election, a stark divide has emerged between political operatives and the techies who worked side-by-side. At issue is the code created during the Obama for America (OFA) 2012 campaign: the digital architecture behind the campaign’s website, its system for collecting donations, its email operation, and its mobile app. When the campaign ended, these programmers wanted to put their work back into the coding community for other developers to study and improve upon. Politicians in the Democratic party felt otherwise, arguing that sharing the tech would give away a key advantage to the Republicans. Three months after the election, the data and software is still tightly controlled by the president and his campaign staff, with the fate of the code still largely undecided. It’s a choice the OFA developers warn could not only squander the digital advantage the Democrats now hold, but also severely impact their ability to recruit top tech talent in the future.

The politicians who want to keep it locked up are making a huge mistake for a very large number of reasons that people who are steeped in technology understand. Let's list out some of the ways in which it's stupid to keep this secret:

It basically makes the technology useless. As one of the techies who worked on the project notes, the software "will be mothballed," meaning that four years from now it'll be useless. What the politicians see as keeping an advantage is really just squandering a useful framework.

It completely misunderstands how technology advances and works. No one expects software from today to be the same four years from now. By mothballing the tech, it will mean that the next campaign will effectively be starting from scratch. Open sourcing it would allow additional work to continue on this.

You can learn from others as well. The really shortsighted part is this insistence that open sourcing it "helps the other side." Again, what will be used four years (or even two years) from now will be quite different as the technology advances. And having it open sourced means that lots of folks can jump in and build on the tech in the meantime. And, yes, even Republican techies might work on it, and the Dems can learn from them as well.

Keeping it closed pisses off the techies, who will be less likely to contribute or join the team next time around.

If the Democrats believe they have stronger technologists, then next election they should still be able to make innovations faster than their opponents.

It quite possibly violates some open source licenses, since much of the code was built on open source software, some of which requires any additional work to also be open sourced.

Keeping the tech secret also means that other campaigns (beyond just elections) can't make use of the technology as well, which could actually hurt causes that the Democrats support.

In many ways this is the same old battle we've seen from legacy companies vs. more open upstarts for years. The legacy players think their advantage is in keeping the code secret. The upstarts know that's wrong: the pace of innovation and the rate of change means that by being open you can better keep up and do more. Keeping it closed guarantees stagnation and falling behind.

from the power-corrupts? dept

Over the weekend, I saw an article on Salon about how shameful it is that supporters of President Obama, who were loud in their condemnation of attacks on civil liberties by George W. Bush, seemed to ignore that President Obama has been worse in many ways (despite many public promises to the contrary). We've already noted that the Democratic Party -- which had fixing civil liberties abuses in its 2008 platform -- has removed all traces of that from the new platform. You would think that, for those who believe strongly in civil liberties, this would be a major concern. Rather than fix them, President Obama continued or expanded many of the very questionable policies of his predecessor, and then added a number of terrifying new ones.

Of course, if civil liberties is the issue you vote over, the other major party offers you no help either (as you should already know, based on Bush's presidency). As Adam Serwer notes, when debating issues of civil liberties, there really is no significant choice between Obama and Romney on this particular issue. There may be some differences at the margins, but that's about it.

Serwer's piece argues that much of this is driven by the American public, who seem particularly fond of giving up our own civil liberties in the face of non-stop fear mongering about terrorism. It seems likely that there is also something to the fact that, once in power, people generally don't like to scale back their own ability to "do stuff." Either way, it amazes me that avid supporters of one side or the other, who absolutely hate the idea of the "other side" getting into power, never seem concerned about how the other side will make use of the same policies they put in place to support themselves.

There are, of course, real differences in many of the other policies from the two candidates, but the lack of significant differences on civil liberties is a real shame. We should demand better.